I'm not really one to second guess the manager...

[The Wedge]

especially after a win...buuuuuut...

Having Wiggington sacrifice had to have been one of the most boneheaded in-game pieces of strategy I've seen lately. You take the bat out of your best hitter, give up an out, and EVERYBODY could have told you that Boston would then walk Tejada to get to a struggling and pressing Scott. So you took the bat out of the heart of your lineup. We were lucky Scott only struck out and didn't GiDP, letting Reimold have a chance to blow it (I kid, that was a pretty sick K he had).

Especially after hearing Wiggington say post-game "I can't even remember the last time I had a sacrifice." I was kinda scared that they'd try it again in the 10th. Thankfully, he got to swing away.

[4thebirds]

I didn't have a problem w/ Dave's decision. I thought it was a pretty good one. Despite Wiggi's "hotness" he still has grounded into quite a few rally killing double plays lately. I see your point though....

[Sports Guy]

Yea, it was a terrible call. When you win, these things get hidden but it doesn't make the decision smarter.

[OriolesManiac88]

Sooo...some people complain that he had Wigginton bunt in the 8th. While other people thought it was foolish that Wigginton didnt bunt again in the 10th. Poor Dave can't please anyone around here.

[RShack]

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with a manager's decisions. That's half of what managers are for. But of course, people can't just disagree with the decision, now can they? No, they cannot. Instead, everything has to "boneheaded" and "terrible". Why? Evidently, it's because the poster is oh-so-much smarter about baseball, to the point where there is no basis for disagreeing, just condemning. What a complete load of baseless ego...

[The Epic]

especially after a win...buuuuuut...

Having Wiggington sacrifice had to have been one of the most boneheaded in-game pieces of strategy I've seen lately. You take the bat out of your best hitter, give up an out, and EVERYBODY could have told you that Boston would then walk Tejada to get to a struggling and pressing Scott. So you took the bat out of the heart of your lineup. We were lucky Scott only struck out and didn't GiDP, letting Reimold have a chance to blow it (I kid, that was a pretty sick K he had).

This kind of reminds me of the scene from Little Big League, where they're saying that Billy didn't know enough about baseball to run a team, so they gave him a hypothetical situation that ended up having the 4 hitter swing away, because if he bunted, the 5 hitter would be IBB'd, and the 6 guy would likely hit into a DP. Gah, I need to re-watch that movie, because I forget the scene. I'm sure someone remembers, though.

I thought the call could've gone either way. Hindsight is 20/20, though, so keep that in mind. In hindsight, maybe Luke shouldn't have been batting fifth to begin with.

But really...that was a heckuva bunt. I was impressed.

[isestrex]

What if Luke hit a Grand Slam?

Then we'd be saying Trembley was brilliant for insuring that Miggy would be on base to tack on an extra insurance run.

[PBR Street Gang]

If Wiggy GDP's instead of bunting the guys over with no outs in the 8th(hadn't he already done that once today?) there would be a slew of people hammering away in a different thread wondering why everyone practiced bunting in spring training if they never bunt?

Luke Scott needs to get the SF in that situation and not the granny he was swinging for! If Luke Scott were watching the same game everyone else was he would have known that those high pitches he kept swinging (and missing) at were not being called strikes by today's home plate umpire. Luke Scott's job is to dominate relievers in those type of situations. He failed today twice.

[El Gordo]

Yea, it was a terrible call. When you win, these things get hidden but it doesn't make the decision smarter.

No this is a dumb post. It was a good call. As if it is a certainty that between Scott and Reimold, you can't get a base hit, a BB, or a FB.:rolleyestf:

[Big Mac]

Don't really think it's ever a good idea to take the bat out of the hands of your #3 and #4 hitters...

[DuffMan]

I was definitely scratching my head over that decision. Wiggy has been our best hitter this season why take the bat out of his hands in that situation?

[osfan83]

I had no problem with the decision. It was the 8th, not the 5th. You have to make it second and third with one out. Most teams have to figure your #4 and #5 hitters will somehow get that run in.

[DrungoHazewood]

I was definitely scratching my head over that decision. Wiggy has been our best hitter this season why take the bat out of his hands in that situation?

Because in his career Wigginton has batted 688 times with a man on first and less than two outs, and he's grounded into 93 double plays. Once every seven plate appearances.

It's arguable either way, certainly not something you can come out and proclaim a stupid move. It's a judgment call, and this time it didn't work out. One more ball to Scott and the go-ahead run walks home, and it would have been great.

[crowmst3k!]

This decision doesn't bother me. At that point in the game, you just have to play for one run. What kills me is that Luke Scott couldn't get one lousy single.

[wildcard]

I agree that it looked like a boneheaded play. Trembley couldn't even explain it very well in the post game interview. He shouldn't have had Wiggy bunt but when he did I thought he was setting up a bases loaded situation with one out for Wieters to pinch hit for Scott. But he let Scott hit or I guess I should say not hit.

Setting the whole inning up for a guy that is in a slump looked bad on Trembley's part. Trembley said in the presser that Wiggy kidded him that Wiggy didn't know if he was going to have him bunt again. Trembley said once was enough. I think Trembley knows he made the wrong move.